Was this film affected by airport x-ray

[JohnTF]

X-ray film is the most X-ray sensitive film around, by several orders of magnitude - so that is the benchmark for whether any X-Ray leakage will show up on film.

I suppose That's good to know, I should toss in a few X Ray badges with my film, - am aware they were making very fast high silver film, but have not had an x ray in years that involved film-- one technology digital is most useful.

I am really not interested in testing my film against x rays, would prefer to simply avoid them, which traveling in the US seems to easily afford ample opportunities. I prefer faults to be of my own making.

Been even longer since we placed a key on a film holder as well in the lab.

Several orders of magnitude? 1000x more sensitive? Amazing!

Smoke Detectors and Cosmic Rays?

I have been told the digital sensors for X rays now allow a lower dosage than film.

But this thread is not really about X Rays, correct?

I had no idea more than one company had problems with Roll Film Marking "Bleed through" or what ever the real circumstance, it happened to me on one occasion. Neither I nor the company offered any definitive explanation. I, out of lack of data, the company, out of lack of interest perhaps.



Regards, John

 

[JohnTF]

I avoid the UF Plus 100 like the plague. It's awful stuff. All the above mentioned issues from blotchy grainy photos, scratches easily, the paper backing ALWAYS shows through EVEN with a camera with NO backlight coming through the film and paper, etc.

I made the mistake of buying a large batch of the UF 100 film myself at one point last summer and had such bad luck with it that I have chosen to use it purely to test new MF cameras for shutter, aperture and lens functionality.

Pretty much every shot looks like these for me.

Assuming they did not offer to compensate for the poor product?

FWIW, the one time it happened to me, it was an "expensive" film. However, it seemed to be a rare event, and truly if I had not burned in the skies, I might have not noticed it. Time flies, it may have been 15-20 years ago?

Regards, John

 

[alienmeatsack]

John, no, but i didn't ask them to either. It was cheap enough I just took it as it was and noted in my head not to buy it again. I've literally never had a single frame from this particular film that was not grainy and blotchy with the paper causing bleed through. Lesson learned lol 😀

 

[Highway 61]

I've literally never had a single frame from this particular film that was not grainy and blotchy with the paper causing bleed through.

This is probably intentional from the manufacturer - you know, for certain people, film photos now must look like some moistured crap with stains, scratches and torn out borders... 😀

 

[Prest_400]

Talking about X-Rays. I have some Fuji Sensia that went through 7 scans and the deep shadows have a green tinge!
Kodachrome 64 and Superia 200 went along (the latter received only 3 scans) and all perfect. Tri-X as well, but it's in the freezer collecting cosmic rays! Must get it developed soon. 3 years since exposure.

X-ray film is the most X-ray sensitive film around, by several orders of magnitude - so that is the benchmark for whether any X-Ray leakage will show up on film.

On some products; it isn't the X-Rays themselves that expose the film. X-Rays activate some fluorescent lights that expose the film. The film itself is a Blue-Green sensitive product.

I doubt between both methods. As when I go to the dentist, they put in my mouth a small piece of plastic that seems the film itself... And when developed yields a small image.

 

[noisycheese]

NOT airport x-ray.

Agreed.

This looks like quality control issues during the manufacturing of the film.

Moral of the story: Unless you are using Ilford, Fuji or Kodak film, shoot about five test rolls before you take film of unknown quality control on an important photographic sojourn.

 

[JohnTF]

John, no, but i didn't ask them to either. It was cheap enough I just took it as it was and noted in my head not to buy it again. I've literally never had a single frame from this particular film that was not grainy and blotchy with the paper causing bleed through. Lesson learned lol 😀

Sad state of affairs, Foma used to ? have a huge problem with dust in their MF films, 35 mm was fine-- and they stuck their then US importer with a large batch.

I have not seen much discussion on their MF films having problems, -- if the film is scanned today it would not be difficult to deal with, but back in the day it would involve a lot of spotting.

If I have a batch of film, I might process some without shooting, though if it is on the bubble it may well yield variable results.

I had a 20 year old roll of Luminos I used to check framing, and it was difficult to see past the over all fog to see frame lines-- never saw so much.

Strangly, I forgot a box of poly contrast Kodak paper left in a moving box in the garage for 20 years, and though it had lost density, it was actually useful in printing some way over exposed negatives given to me to print as a favor.

Has anyone cleaned off the emulsion on paper to use in ink jet printing?
;-)

Clorox takes it off rather quickly, I used to strip X Ray films for use on overhead projectors.

John

 

[Highway 61]

Sad state of affairs, Foma used to ? have a huge problem with dust in their MF films, 35 mm was fine

Ditto especially with Fomapan 100 in MF (dust, emulsion dropouts, scratches from the paper, paper leaving nasty debris in the camera). So I now stuck with Kodak and Ilford for MF, but don't hesitate to use Fomapan 100 in 35 mm - what a beautiful film.

 

[JohnTF]

Ditto especially with Fomapan 100 in MF (dust, emulsion dropouts, scratches from the paper, paper leaving nasty debris in the camera). So I now stuck with Kodak and Ilford for MF, but don't hesitate to use Fomapan 100 in 35 mm - what a beautiful film.

We never had any problems with 35mm, the 200 speed seemed to have about a half to one more tonal step-- I keep some frozen--

Of course Kodak had a hissy fit about T in the name T200, and threatened to sue us to hell and back, so Foma left us holding the bag on bad 120 film and 35mm film we could not sell, changed the name several times and sold it to the competition.

Other than that, it was a lovely partnership. ;-)

John